Re: Dreadful theology?

George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 20:41:47 -0500

John W. Burgeson wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote, speaking of ICR:
>
> "I agree - their presentations are technically very good. But not
> only is their science _badly_ flawed, their theology is dreadful."
>
> That line got me to thinking, George. (I know -- bad idea!).
>
> Let me lay out a scenario that finds ICR a positive force for
> Christianity.
>
> Assume that as a result of ICR's efforts 20,000 people each year become
> Christians.
>
> Some of those folks would have been reached by other evangelical means.
> Some would not have been. Let's say 20 percent would not have been.
>
> So far "Christianity" is 4,000 people ahead. Bad science and bad theology
> aside. I think most folks would agree that 4,000 people ahead is worth
> having an ICR around.
>
> Now ICR "reaches," say, 100,000 new people a year. Say that 80% are
> Christians or part of the 20,000 converts above. So 80,000 people,
> because of ICR's efforts, take on the ICR baggage.
>
> The question then becomes -- do we see 4,000 or more of those 80,000
> (5%) fall away from Christianity because their faith is shaken when they
> go to college and take a course in evolution?
>
> My own guess is that while a few do -- and Glenn has documented some "war
> stories" of people who have done this, I think the percentage of the
> 80,000 who would fall away is much less than 5%. Even 1% seems too high.
>
> Now all of the numbers above are just my "first guesses." Before (or in
> addition to) arguing with the specific numbers, if the numbers were
> correct, is the analysis complete? If it is, then are the numbers
> reasonable?

Yes, the numbers are guesses, & my guesses would be different.
We need some real data here.
You've left out the non-Christians who are sufficiently put off
by the bad science & other features of the ICR approach that they don't
give Christianity any serious thought.
And there are other effects of the type of theology typical of
ICR. It tends to insist that a Christian can't have any doubts, while
in fact, since we are sinners & thus of imperfect faith, we do doubt.
This can lead either to guilt if doubt cannot be suppressed or to a very
superficial faith if all questioning - & thus all thinking - are
suppressed. & in the worst case that can result in a sham faith that is
worse than no faith at all because the person thinks he/she does
believe.

> Finally, assume for a moment that the analysis is complete and the
> numbers correct. Assume also that a person's salvation is far more
> important than either "getting the science right" or even "getting the
> theology right." Under these two assumptions, would you agree that having
> ICR around is a "good thing?" Not the "best thing," just better than
> having them non-existent.

I admit that this is a non-trivial question. The same type of
question can be asked of other methods of evangelization. Some people
become Christians because they're told that it will make them healthy
and wealthy. (Tune in the Trinity Broadcasting Network some time.)
Some of these people may genuinely come to believe in Jesus Christ. But
the original motivation - the health & wealth gospel - is fake.
Charlemagne "converted" 3000 Saxons by giving them a choice of baptism
or execution. Some of those Saxons - or if not they, their descendants
- may have come to saving faith. That outreach methodology is, however,
badly flawed.
I guess my basic response may seem like a cop-out, but at least
it's an orthodox cop-out! The Holy Spirit converts people, and with all
that we may do, we have to leave results and "success" to the Spirit.
The Spirit indeed doesn't need perfect theology - but _a fortiori_,
doesn't need bad theology either. So I don't think I need to
countenance bad theology. If the Spirit chooses to use it, I won't
argue.

Shalom,
George